Category Archives: Canadian politics
Raising low-wage workers out of poverty: What is the government doing?
By Jenny Carson August 21, 2013 http://rabble.ca
That there has been a dramatic rise in the number of working poor in Canada is incontestable. In 2013, one in ten Canadians earn minimum wages, more than double the number ten years ago; half of those workers are in Ontario. A recent study conducted jointly by McMaster University and United Way Toronto found that barely half of all workers in the GTA-Hamilton area are employed in permanent full-time positions that provide benefits and a modicum of job security.
The explosion of precarious or insecure employment and the subsequent growth in income inequality are the result of both long and short-term changes in the labour market. The outsourcing of good-paying manufacturing jobs to the developing world, the expansion of the low-wage service sector, reckless Wall Street spending and the assault on unions have all contributed to the current plight of the working class. But also important is the erosion of state support for collective bargaining and basic employment protections.
Governments at all levels have abdicated their responsibility to balance corporate and worker interests to maintain a healthy and balanced economy. The consequences for workers — in the form of shrinking wages, increased job insecurity and declining health — have been disastrous.
It is with cautious optimism then that we should greet recent municipal, provincial and federal-level efforts to address worker poverty and income inequality. On July 19, Toronto City Council voted 28-3 to update the City’s Fair Wage Policy. First established in 1893, the Fair Wage Policy requires contractors and suppliers for the city to pay their workers the prevailing market wages and benefits in their field of employment or, for unionized fields, union rates. The policy was designed to protect workers from unscrupulous contractors trying to underbid their competitors by paying their workers less than the prevailing wage rates, and to enhance the city’s reputation as an ethical employer. However, because the rates had not been updated since 2003, until last month many of the city’s “fair wages” fell below the Ontario minimum wage of $10.25 an hour.
The July 19 vote to update the fair wage rates reveals that a majority of councilors understand that is bad policy for the city, as an employer, to add to the growing ranks of the working poor (this excludes councilors like Denzil Minnan-Wong who sees as any kind of wage control as “social engineering”) Under the new rates, contractors providing janitorial services for the city must pay their workers at least $12.43 an hour. Cleaners in the private sector in contrast almost always earn minimum wages.
Unfortunately, however, a fair wage is not a living wage, which the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates to be $17.76 an hour in Toronto (a living wage covers the cost of basic necessities such as shelter, food, clothing and transportation). The city’s fair wage rate for cleaners would barely raise a worker out of poverty and, if she or he were supporting a family as is often the case, would in fact leave them in poverty. This then is only a first step if the city truly wants to be an ethical employer.
On July 19 City Council also agreed to devise a “job quality assessment tool” against which any jobs being contracted out would be measured. The basic idea behind this initiative is to ensure that the city is not turning good jobs into bad jobs through the contracting-out process. As well as considering wage levels, the tool will include other criteria such as worker health and safety, skills and training opportunities, working conditions and other factors which determine job quality. Ideally, the job quality assessment tool, which will be considered by Council at the end of this year, will provide some protection for city workers who will no doubt face another round of privatization pressure as Mayor Ford runs for re-election in 2014. How successful this initiative will be depends on whether workers and their unions are given a voice in its formulation and implementation, and it’s not yet clear if they will be.
At the provincial level, the Wynne government recently announced the creation of a minimum wage advisory panel that will consider how to calculate increases to Ontario’s minimum wage. The six-member panel, chaired by University of Toronto Industrial Relations and Human Resources professor Anil Verma includes representatives from labour, business and youth, the latter of whom are disproportionately represented among low-wage and precariously employed workers.
The minimum wage in Ontario has been frozen at $10.25 for the last three years, and will remain so for at least the next six months as the panel conducts public consultations and studies how other jurisdictions calculate minimum wage rates. Anti-poverty activists are justifiably angry that it has taken the Liberals more than two years to set up the panel, and wonder why, unlike many other provinces, Ontario does not provide automatic annual minimum wage increases pegged to inflation. Ontario Labour Minister Yasir Naqvi’s assertion that we need a “made-in-Ontario” solution raises more questions than answers.
Yet once again there is reason to be hopeful that this initiative will help low-wage workers, many of whom are newcomers to Canada climb out of poverty and contribute to the economic recovery we so desperately need (remember, low-wage workers tend to spend every cent they earn in the local economy). The panel will most certainly recommend a wage increase and, perhaps just as importantly, develop a more predictable formula for raising the minimum wage in the future (in the past this has been done on an arbitrary, ad hoc basis that resulted in a nine-year wage freeze under the Conservatives). Only time will tell whether the panel’s political masters, whoever they might be next spring support a progressive overhaul of the system.
Despite the chilly climate for workers on Parliament Hill, there may also be reason to hope for change at the federal level. Next spring NDP Member of Parliament for Toronto Davenport Andrew Cash will introduce a private member’s bill to expand EI access to part-time and self-employed workers and to eliminate the use of unpaid interns. Cash has a personal as well as professional interest in the issue as someone who spent most of his adult life precariously employed in the creative sector. His bill would modernize a program that no longer reflects the employment realities of many Canadians, and make it harder for employers to engage in unethical and often illegal practices such as hiring workers as “independent contractors” so as to avoid obligations under employment law. It would also reform a pension system that currently consigns large numbers of elderly Canadians to poverty.
Cash understands that legislative changes to EI are only part of the solution. He envisions a multi-pronged approach that includes affordable daycare (along the lines of Quebec), social programs to fight poverty, and decent and affordable public transit. While the chances of Cash’s bill passing under a Conservative government are next to zero, his laudable initiative has the potential to start a public dialogue about how the EI system is failing Canadian workers. It is also, as Cash explains, an issue which “spans the employment silos and class divides” that traditionally divides workers. His bill has the potential to mobilize a broad cross-section of the working class, from journalists to taxi drivers to computer programmers. Its long-term success depends in large part on whether this mobilization takes place.
Together, these initiatives reveal that government (or at least some within government) is finally beginning to heed worker and progressive demands for action that will stem the alarming growth of job precarity and worker poverty in Canada.
It is far from clear whether any of these initiatives will lead to real change for workers, but collectively they suggest that at least some of our elected officials understand that government has a stake in creating a more equitable society.
Jenny Carson is Associate Professor in the Department of History at Ryerson University.
Photo: Bob Simpson/flickr
What legislation will ‘die’ when Harper prorogues Parliament?
By Kelsey Johnson
http://thetyee.ca Published August 19, 2013
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until sometime in October will mark the end of several controversial pieces of legislation.
Under parliamentary rules, 19 government bills will die on the order paper in either the House of Commons or the Senate.
Among the pieces of legislation affected by the impending prorogation are the Senate Reform Act, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, and the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, all of which have been met with varying degrees of criticism.
Delaying the return of Parliament also means the slates of the various standing committees have been wiped clean. This means the revision of the First Nations Elections Act and the Combating Counterfeit Products Act have been terminated, at least for the time being.
Studies by committee into questions surrounding animal welfare, bee health, infrastructure and the state of Canada lobster industry will also grind to a halt. The rules do not allow committees to sit when Parliament is prorogued.
While the bills have theoretically died on the order paper, the government could make a motion to reintroduce the legislation at the stage it was at before prorogation. In order to do that, however, it must get unanimous consent.
Otherwise, the legislation must begin the process all over again. Since the government has a majority, it is likely the legislation the government wants to reintroduced will be fast-tracked through debate.
As for private member’s bills, they are not affected by prorogation. They will automatically be reintroduced at the last stage reached in the House of Commons via a specific standing order.
Kelsey Johnson reports for iPolitics, where this article first appeared.
Most Canadians doubt health care system prepared to handle ‘tsunami’ of aging boomers, new poll shows
From: 
Canadian Physiotherapy Association/CNW GroupThree in five Canadians surveyed said they will have to rely on the public system for home care and long-term care if they need it later in life.
Canadians have little faith the country’s health system is prepared to handle the needs of a looming “tsunami” of aging boomers, a new poll has found.
Six in 10 Canadians surveyed said they lack confidence in the health system’s ability to care for Canada’s rapidly greying population.
Women, as well as Canadians aged 34 to 54, and those already caring for an elderly person, are among those least confident that hospitals and long-term care facilities can handle the demands of a population that is living longer than at any other time in the nation’s history, according to the Canadian Medical Association’s annual report card on health.
Only in Quebec does a majority (54 per cent) believe that hospitals and long-term care facilities in their area are sufficient to meet the needs of the elderly, according to the survey.
The anxiety Canadians have about health care in their so-called golden years is both real and well-founded
The Ipsos Reid poll of 1,000 Canadians was released to coincide with Monday’s opening of the CMA’s annual meeting in Calgary, where main items on the agenda include a special session devoted entirely to end-of-life care issues.
“The anxiety Canadians have about health care in their so-called golden years is both real and well-founded,” outgoing CMA president Dr. Anna Reid said in a statement released with the poll.
All levels of government, including the federal government, “need to act to address the demographic tsunami that is heading toward the health care system,” she said.
A vast majority of Canadians — 93 per cent — support a national, seniors’ health strategy for home care and long-term care, the poll found, with support highest in Alberta and Ontario, as well as among women and Canadians nearing retirement age (55 to 65).
Three in five Canadians surveyed said they will have to rely on the public system for home care and long-term care if they need it later in life.
Half are “very” concerned about maintaining their health in their retirement years; seven in 10 are worried about their financial future, the poll found.
Those already caring for an older adult are among those most worried about there not being enough services should they ever need home or long-term care in their own old age.
Reid, who has been caring for her own elderly father, who suffers from dementia, said more resources are needed for nursing care, home-based care and palliative care, particularly in smaller communities. “We know how to do good palliative care, it’s just not being practised across the board,” she said in an interview.
We could be saving the system an enormous amount of money by providing far more support in the home environment
It costs nearly $1,000 a day to keep a senior in a hospital bed, and $126 a day for a bed in a long-term care facility, said Dr. Louis Hugo Francescutti, incoming president of the doctors’ group.
“To keep them in home with supportive home care and assisted living costs about $35 to $50 a day,” he said. “We could be saving the system an enormous amount of money by providing far more support in the home environment.”
The average life expectancy of Canadians has increased by more than 30 years since the early 1900s, to 78 for men and 83 for women in 2011. But the number of years lived in good health is sliding. The majority of today’s seniors have at least one chronic condition; as many as one in four has two or more.
Overall, the 2011 census counted nearly five million people aged 65 and older in Canada.
By 2031, 22.8 per cent of the population will be 65 or older, jumping to one quarter — 25.5 per cent — by 2061.
The Ipsos telephone poll was conducted between July 17 and July 26. A sample this size is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points.
Three-quarters, or 75 per cent, of those surveyed gave an “A” or “B” grade to the overall quality of health services. However, views on the future are split — about half think health services will get better and the other half believe things will get worse.
Only about half gave an “A” or B” grade to access to diagnostic equipment such as MRIs and CT scans, or access to specialists. The marks were worse for mental health, with only 41 per cent of those surveyed giving an “A” or “B” grade for access to mental health services.
Few — 29 per cent — gave the federal government top marks in dealing with health care in Canada.
A Race To The Floor For Minimum Wage: Can It Be Stopped?
By Andrew Chernoff https://andrewchernoff.wordpress.com/
First it was Jordan Bateman of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation with his article, “The pay of government workers is way out of line” published July 31, 2013 in The Province, to which I made my feelings known about on August 3, 2013 in my commentary, “Bateman Advocates A Race To The Floor For Minimum Wage…You First, I’ll Give Ya A Push”.
Just like a bad smell you can’t get rid of, or a bad itch you just can’t seem to scratch, another proponent of the drive to lower wages——–using a corrosive and mean-spirited abuse of the privilege of free speech for hateful, venomous and spiteful unsupported comments with the intent to rile, incite anger and get an antagonistic reaction——comes forward.
Ms. Margaret Wente, a so-called journalist for the The Globe and Mail, woke up recently seemingly during that bitchy time of the month (the only way I can explain it), and decided to lambaste, insult and take undignified shots at Canada’s firefighters—all of the “Nations” firefighters—-without exception.
In her article on August 8, 2013, “A Nation of $100,000 Firefighters”, Wente charges, “municipalities do not love firefighters.”
Further, she claims to speak and know the feelings of our municipalities and regions, proclaiming, “ Across Canada, towns and cities are getting hosed by the skyrocketing costs of their fire departments.”, of which firefighters, she suggests, are the main reason for those increased costs because, municipalities, “simply match the settlements that everybody else got, including police. So the costs spiral ever upward,”
She continues, by adding insult to injury when she claims, “Thanks to arbitration settlements, your firefighters are the best paid (and possibly the most underworked) guys in town.”
Really?? Possibly the most underworked in MY town? Hmmm….she’s been in my town??….I think not!
She claims to have nothing against fire fighters. “I have nothing against firefighters, personally. But times have changed. We can’t go on like this. I could write the same column about the police. You guys are supposed to protect us. But we can’t afford you any more.”
But she does say, “They look good on calendars.” A sexist comment I dare say. And dare I do.
So nobody is safe. The police make too much. School teachers? Bus drivers? Janitors? Airline pilots? Ambulance drivers? Paramedics? Who is not a target for Ms. Wente?
She obviously has a lustful crush for Stephen Harper and his Canadian Austerity plan. In her desire to drive down wages, she is a true Harperite, spreading propaganda for that race to the floor for minimum wage, to increase that disparity between those that have, and those that don’t—between the 1% and the 99%.
According to Wente, our firefighters have barely anything to do, “Working conditions are pretty sweet too. Thanks to modern safety standards, there are very few fires left to fight. These days, most fire department calls are medical. To prove that they’re still needed, fire departments have been adding defibrillators and Jaws of Life, and frantically expanding their repertoires to respond to even minor non-fire emergencies. Still, there’s an awful lot of what we shall euphemistically call “down time,” which firemen fill by preparing meals, sleeping, watching television, polishing the trucks and rewinding the hoses.”
She claims that the costs and salaries for Canadian firefighters are for smaller cities, “typically the largest item in the budget. It accounts for upward of a quarter of their costs.” And that firefighters and their unions are so insensitive, greedy in the community and regions they live in, that “the costs spiral ever upward, and towns are forced to cut back on libraries and roads.”
This is one woman who has one hell of a bitchy time of the month; so much so, that a grizzly bear would be no match for her spite and hate.
“But the really crass way that the rich have of driving down wages is by subtly and not so subtly feeding people’s envy and greed…making us worry that someone else might be getting ahead, might be doing better than us. We aren’t talking about getting us riled over the wages of bankers, brokers and sports stars; we profile them in the fashion and shopping pages of the papers.”, OperationMaple writes in its reaction to Wente’s column, titled, “Let Us Count The Ways of Driving Down Wages”.
I continue with the following quote from OperationMaple’s article referred to above:
“The Rich and their Media Mavens saved the corrosive power of envy and greed for school teachers, fireman, bus drivers…all the folks that live next door and shop at the same stores we do. Let’s get agitated and angry with Joe down the street and Alice around the corner for having a job with a union, a negotiated wage and benefits and let’s try and pull them down to our situation…part time work and no benefits and lousy pay. Because when their economic situation is as desperate as ours, then everything will be ok.
They get paid too much and work too little and couldn’t we all get by with a volunteer firefighting force? Just because they are the ones who run into burning buildings when the rest of us are running from burning buildings, in Wente’s view, doesn’t justify the wage they get.
It used to be the case that when people got decent wages and benefits through collective action we’d all cheer them on and try to copy their efforts, create our own unions and seek our own collective success. Not anymore. Now we just want to tear down those folks lucky enough to have a union. The drive to lower wages by making all of us envious of our neighbours is succeeding. That’s why the 1% and their media allies, their media employees go after Employment Insurance and Firefighter wages…because it works and it distracts us from the folks that are truly criminally over-paid: bankers and brokers.”
I conclude with the following remarks.
The drive to lower wages may be succeeding in some minds, but it has not succeeded everywhere and with everybody. Are you going to let it happen to you? Will you start fighting back now, and let yourself be heard? Will you stand up? Will you get involved in civil disobedience and fight the good fight?
The drive to lower wages is nothing but a race to the floor of minimum wage. We are expected to give up more, so the rich can get richer? I think not.
The richest 300 people in the world are more wealthy than the poorest 3 billion combined, and every year rich countries take over 10 times more money from poor countries than they give in aid, according to therules.org. Find out more by visiting http://www.therules.org
Don’t let yourself succumb to the race to the floor of minimum wage.
Andrew Phillip Chernoff 